Europe tries to save face in its relationship with Trump

Washington's hegemonic policies in NATO and the EU will bring no benefits to the old continent

Photo: Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump

The EU-U.S. trade agreement reached in July 2025 between U.S. President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen marks a new step in the development of a mixed political, economic, and military partnership between Europe and Washington.

Trump sees himself as the master of the world

At the Hague Summit and in Scotland, Trump put NATO and EU allies in a difficult situation, trying to use a new geopolitical reality that favors Washington: increasing financial pressure on Europe, forcing the alliance to increase defense spending, and resorting to open threats and authoritative commands.

All these changes have occurred against the backdrop of increased strategic uncertainty and divisions within NATO, stemming from differing priorities: the United States focuses on Asia (China, Indo-Pacific), while Europe is concerned about threats from Russia. This has led to contradictions in resource allocation.

The Ukraine issue has taken a back seat. Although support for Kyiv continues, it has faded, but military aid to Ukraine is now counted as part of NATO countries' defense spending. The summit resolutions thus create a new atmosphere that satisfies Trump's ambitions, compelling NATO and the EU to re-examine their strategic planning. At the same time, aware of the unreliability of American guarantees under Trump, Europe has begun to invest more actively in its own defense, shifting towards pursuing European autonomy and reducing dependence on the U.S.: the EU has passed the "ReArm" plan, which allocates 80 billion euros for modernizing armaments and establishing a common defense strategy (EDIS).

The Hague Summit marked a shift in NATO towards a new model combining American dominance with European forced autonomy. However, due to a lack of a clear vision for the future of the alliance, disagreements on financial issues, and being constrained by Trump's policies, NATO faces long-term instability risks. For Russia, this means both new challenges (strengthening of the NATO eastern flank) and opportunities for dialogue in the context of weakened Western unity.

In the meeting between Trump and Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland, the two sides actually reached a framework trade agreement under the conditions proposed by the U.S.—a tariff agreement stipulating that European goods exported to the U.S. would be subject to a 15% tariff.

As an exchange for lowering tariffs, the EU agreed to exempt U.S. goods from tariffs, expand investments in the U.S., and guarantee demand for U.S. energy and military equipment. Brussels clearly panicked and made a series of forced concessions because the president had threatened to impose a 30% tariff on the EU—immediately effective from August 1st.

Trump had reason to feel proud: the EU committed to additional investments of 600 billion dollars in the U.S. and will increase purchases of "hundreds of billions" in military equipment. There was also a specific clause regarding energy: according to the president's words, the total value of energy supplied by the U.S. to the EU is approximately 750 billion dollars.

The EU pledged to completely replace Russian oil and gas with U.S. liquefied natural gas and nuclear fuel. Thus, in the EU-U.S. trade agreement, the political considerations of the European Commission completely replaced economic logic, and the "certainty in uncertainty" promised by Brussels obviously failed to materialize.

The medium-term effects of this agreement will determine the future of European integration, and these effects will soon become apparent, as 15% import tariffs could make EU goods unable to compete in the U.S. market.

Furthermore, it remains unclear how much hydrocarbons the EU will purchase from the U.S. for 75 billion dollars, and what the quality of these raw materials will be. The question of under what conditions, and in which areas, the EU will invest 60 billion dollars in the U.S. economy is still unclear, bringing great uncertainty. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the U.S.-EU trade agreement could severely harm European industry against the backdrop of rising energy prices, leading to deindustrialization in Europe and the transfer of investments from EU countries to the U.S. The reason is obvious: U.S. energy will be significantly more expensive than Russian energy, which will be a very heavy blow to the EU's industry and agriculture.

It is no coincidence that Marine Le Pen, leader of the French right-wing party "National Rally," called the agreement a failure for Brussels at the political, economic, and moral levels. Russia must engage in dialogue with Trump and the Kiev regime with strength, clearly defining its own interests.

NATO and the EU try to counterbalance Trump's hegemonic stance

Due to the uncertainty of American security guarantees for Europe, accelerated development of military cooperation plans between NATO and the EU gained new momentum, covering multiple areas aimed at strengthening security and defense capabilities in the Euro-Atlantic region.

This includes joint crisis response and operations under the "Berlin Plus" agreement (2003), which allows the EU to use NATO resources, such as command structures and operational planning, for its own military actions and exercises, such as PACE (Parallel and Coordinated Exercise Implementation Plan), to enhance operational coordination.

Defense capabilities under the NATO Defense Planning Process (NDPP) and the Partnership Planning and Analysis Process (PARP) projects are being developed in a coordinated manner, aiming to avoid duplication and ensure weapon compatibility, especially in the context of the conflict in Ukraine (e.g., replenishment of ammunition reserves).

Military mobility is increasing, with structured dialogues on military mobility to promote cross-border movement of armies and goods in Europe, including improving transportation infrastructure and unifying customs and border procedures. In 2023, a joint working group was established to protect critical infrastructure (such as energy and transport).

Countering hybrid threats is an important focus—NATO and the EU exchange information and conduct joint exercises through the Helsinki Hybrid Threat Centre. Cybersecurity cooperation is also being strengthened, including participation in exercises through joint structures, such as the NATO CCDCO (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence) based in Tallinn, which deals with cybersecurity issues of alliance countries and exchanges data with the EU institutions, agencies, offices, and cyber security services (CERT-EU).

The main framework documents for cooperation include joint statements (2016, 2018, 2023), which determined cooperation priorities, as well as theoretical documents such as NATO's 2022 and 2024 Strategic Concepts and the EU's 2022 Strategic Compass.

Support for Ukraine and other partners remains unchanged: the EU-NATO Ukraine Coordination Centre was established in 2022 to coordinate military and humanitarian aid, and joint programs to strengthen the capabilities of partner countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc.) are being implemented.

A major obstacle to the EU's ambitious goals remains the differences in defense spending levels among member states (e.g., between Northern and Southern Europe), as well as growing dependence on the U.S. and increasing criticism of European policies "submitting" to Washington, while Washington openly claims to "rule over nations and the world." Our military victories in special operations will force him to abandon these absurd ideas.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7535009864657977856/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【top/like】 or 【down/vote】 buttons below.